[CCLM-Converction Permitting Scale] Korea Domain (3km) simulation configuration – in #9: CCLM
in #9: CCLM
Cookies disclaimer
Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your
device in order to verify your login. These cookies are essential
to provide access to resources on this website and it will not
work properly without.
Learn more
<p>
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments.
</p>
<p>
Now I read the paper you mentioned (Brisson et al., 2015), and it is really helpful for me to understand better configuration of both
<span class="caps">
CPCS
</span>
and
<span class="caps">
CCLM
</span>
.
</p>
<p>
(1) Although Brisson’s study shows redundant of intermediate step, we are willing to consider triple-nesting not only for
<span class="caps">
CPCS
</span>
, but for analyze
<span class="caps">
CCLM
</span>
12.5km with other type of
<span class="caps">
RCM
</span>
s’ 12.5km results over Korea region.
</p>
<p>
(2) Since I do not know about itype_gscp options well, graupel parameterization is the most impressive one for me. However, contrary to Brisson’s dry-bias over Belgian region in
<span class="caps">
CCLM
</span>
25km, we find little wet-bias over Korea region in our
<span class="caps">
CCLM
</span>
25km run (
<span class="caps">
BGF
</span>
:
<span class="caps">
ERA
</span>
-
<span class="caps">
INTERIM
</span>
), so I want to do sensitivity test (short-period, less than 1 year) for itype_gscp (3 or 4) and their impacts over Korea region.
</p>
<p>
(3) As Brisson recommends, we will apply lateral boundary fields wider than our initial setting.
</p>
<p>
(4) I appreciate your kindness providing simulation information. We will reflect your set-ups carefully for our simulation. And also, as you pointed, we will carefully set the ‘dt’ to escape
<span class="caps">
CFL
</span>
violations.
</p>
<p>
Best regards,
<br/>
Donghyun
</p>
<p>
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments.
</p>
<p>
Now I read the paper you mentioned (Brisson et al., 2015), and it is really helpful for me to understand better configuration of both
<span class="caps">
CPCS
</span>
and
<span class="caps">
CCLM
</span>
.
</p>
<p>
(1) Although Brisson’s study shows redundant of intermediate step, we are willing to consider triple-nesting not only for
<span class="caps">
CPCS
</span>
, but for analyze
<span class="caps">
CCLM
</span>
12.5km with other type of
<span class="caps">
RCM
</span>
s’ 12.5km results over Korea region.
</p>
<p>
(2) Since I do not know about itype_gscp options well, graupel parameterization is the most impressive one for me. However, contrary to Brisson’s dry-bias over Belgian region in
<span class="caps">
CCLM
</span>
25km, we find little wet-bias over Korea region in our
<span class="caps">
CCLM
</span>
25km run (
<span class="caps">
BGF
</span>
:
<span class="caps">
ERA
</span>
-
<span class="caps">
INTERIM
</span>
), so I want to do sensitivity test (short-period, less than 1 year) for itype_gscp (3 or 4) and their impacts over Korea region.
</p>
<p>
(3) As Brisson recommends, we will apply lateral boundary fields wider than our initial setting.
</p>
<p>
(4) I appreciate your kindness providing simulation information. We will reflect your set-ups carefully for our simulation. And also, as you pointed, we will carefully set the ‘dt’ to escape
<span class="caps">
CFL
</span>
violations.
</p>
<p>
Best regards,
<br/>
Donghyun
</p>
Now I read the paper you mentioned (Brisson et al., 2015), and it is really helpful for me to understand better configuration of both
CPCS
and
CCLM
.
(1) Although Brisson’s study shows redundant of intermediate step, we are willing to consider triple-nesting not only for
CPCS
, but for analyze
CCLM
12.5km with other type of
RCM
s’ 12.5km results over Korea region.
(2) Since I do not know about itype_gscp options well, graupel parameterization is the most impressive one for me. However, contrary to Brisson’s dry-bias over Belgian region in
CCLM
25km, we find little wet-bias over Korea region in our
CCLM
25km run (
BGF
:
ERA
-
INTERIM
), so I want to do sensitivity test (short-period, less than 1 year) for itype_gscp (3 or 4) and their impacts over Korea region.
(3) As Brisson recommends, we will apply lateral boundary fields wider than our initial setting.
(4) I appreciate your kindness providing simulation information. We will reflect your set-ups carefully for our simulation. And also, as you pointed, we will carefully set the ‘dt’ to escape
CFL
violations.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments.
Now I read the paper you mentioned (Brisson et al., 2015), and it is really helpful for me to understand better configuration of both CPCS and CCLM .
(1) Although Brisson’s study shows redundant of intermediate step, we are willing to consider triple-nesting not only for CPCS , but for analyze CCLM 12.5km with other type of RCM s’ 12.5km results over Korea region.
(2) Since I do not know about itype_gscp options well, graupel parameterization is the most impressive one for me. However, contrary to Brisson’s dry-bias over Belgian region in CCLM 25km, we find little wet-bias over Korea region in our CCLM 25km run ( BGF : ERA - INTERIM ), so I want to do sensitivity test (short-period, less than 1 year) for itype_gscp (3 or 4) and their impacts over Korea region.
(3) As Brisson recommends, we will apply lateral boundary fields wider than our initial setting.
(4) I appreciate your kindness providing simulation information. We will reflect your set-ups carefully for our simulation. And also, as you pointed, we will carefully set the ‘dt’ to escape CFL violations.
Best regards,
Donghyun